expression including other rights that are not dependent on human rights (i.e. derivative) and can initiate an action to protect those rights if they are violated.” AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TOGO & 7 ORS V. THE TOGOLESE REPUBLIC ECW/CCJ/JUD/09/20 PAGE. 10. 64. The Court therefore holds that the Applicants are devoid of capacity as a legal persons to bring an action for the violation of their right to assembly and free movement and the Application in that wise is hereby declared inadmissible. The allegation as it relates to violation of freedom of expression of the Applicants will be analysed at the merit stage. b) Capacity to maintain an action on behalf of the Senegalese people 65. As it relates to the Applicants’ representative action on behalf of the Senegalese for the violation of their rights to assembly, free movement and freedom of expression, the Court has recognised the capacity of NGOs to bring an action on behalf of a group or community in the interest of the public, challenging the law or action acknowledging that “The doctrine of actio popularis was developed under the Roman law in order to allow any citizen to challenge a breach of a public right in court. This doctrine developed as a way of ensuring that the restrictive approach to the issue of standing would not prevent public spirited individuals from challenging a breach of a public right in court. In public interest litigation the Plaintiff need not show that he has suffered any personal injury or has a personal interest that needs to be protected to have standing. Plaintiff must establish that there is a public right which is worthy of protection which has allegedly been breached and that the matter in question is justiciable.” See SERAP V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2010) CCJELR, PAGE 196, PARAGRAPH 32 & 34. See also THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF 21